United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 2021

(PC) Garvin v. Mule Creek State Prison

(PC) Garvin v. Mule Creek State Prison
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · Decided October 18, 2021
(PC) Garvin v. Mule Creek State Prison

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH GARVIN, No. 2:19-cv-2024 AC P

Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS &

RECOMMENDATIONS MULE CREEK STATE PRISON,

Defendant.

By order filed April 12, 2021, the complaint was screened and found to not state a claim for relief. ECF No. 7. Plaintiff was given thirty days to file an amended complaint and cautioned that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Id. at 6. He then requested and was granted two sixty-day extensions of time. ECF Nos. 12, 15. In granting the second motion for an extension, the court warned plaintiff that no further extensions would be granted, and that failure to file an amended complaint would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. ECF No. 15. The time for filing an amended complaint has now passed, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim for the reasons set forth in the April 12, 2021 Screening Order (ECF No. 7). See L.R. 110; } Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: October 15, 2021 ~

_Athuer—Clore

ALLISON CLAIRE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.